#yes on 522

[elizabess]

I'm really upset I live in a state that didn't pass GMO labeling. We could have been innovative. 

[kay-faraday]

"Washington voters Tuesday were rejecting a measure that would have made the state the first in the nation to require labeling of genetically engineered foods. The measure trailed 45 to 55 percent — a margin that appeared impossible to overcome. It was a stunning reversal for an initiative that two-thirds of voters supported in early polls. But opponents, backed by Monsanto and other large agribusinesses, outspent proponents by a ratio of nearly 3-to-1, making the initiative campaign one of the costliest in state history. A blitz of critical ads appeared to change voters’ minds. “The facts show that I-522 was a badly written initiative that deserved to be voted down,” said Dana Bieber, spokeswoman for the No on I-522 campaign. “We knew from the beginning that the more voters knew about Initiative 522, the less they’re going to like it.” Pro-Initiative 522 campaign manager Delana Jones was not ready to concede, pointing out that as many as 300,000 projected ballots remained to be counted in King County, where the measure was winning handily. “It’s too close to call,” she said. “Win or lose, this is a long war,” said David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, the initiative’s biggest donor. “Labeling is inevitable.” The measure led in only three counties in addition to King — Whatcom, Jefferson and San Juan. Rep. Cary Condotta, R-East Wenatchee and a co-chair of the “Yes” campaign, said an upside of the election is that now 90 percent of Washington residents know what genetically engineered foods are. “The movement continues,” he said. Supporters argued that consumers have a right to know what’s in their food. Opponents called the labeling plan flawed and misleading and said it would only scare consumers away from a promising technology. The initiative campaign put Washington at center stage in debates over both genetic engineering and the role of out-of-state funding in elections. With $22 million in donations, the “No” campaign set a record for fundraising by one side in an initiative battle in Washington. Only $550 of that total came from state residents. The biggest donors included the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer and Bayer CropScience, all heavily invested in genetically engineered crops.

A measure nearly identical to Washington’s was defeated in California last year, after the same alliance of food-industry giants outspent labeling proponents by a ratio of nearly 5-to-1."

ALL ANYONE WITH A BRAIN had to do was look at those ads and see “paid for by Monsanto” at the bottom of the screen in that small print. I’m so pissed because we were out centre stage on this issue (as WA state usually is: just look at us legalising marajuana last year) and we fucked up.

[closeupfaraway]

So, it's not looking good right now, but it will be another few days before we know for sure. I am so angry that the chemical companies have bought another election. And let's call them what they are-chemical companies, they aren't agro-science or crop science or bio-technology. They make chemicals.

One of the big arguments against 522 was that food costs would go up. Bullshit, the last time you bought a can of high fructose corn pop with a "new look, same great taste" did it cost more? No one seems concerned about the price of all the medications they have to take to counteract all the garbage they are putting into their bodies.

My biggest concern at this point is how long it will be before we can no longer buy our own non-GMO seeds? Or save our seeds from year to year. One of our biggest defenses against GMO's is growing our own food, but honestly how long until Monsanto says we can't? 

Anyway, still hoping it passes, the counting continues and lots of folks don't vote until the last minute. 

Rant over, back to your regularly scheduled Tumbling.

[foodfoibles]

Yes or No on 522?

Today is a huge day for GMO politics. Washington state residents are currently voting on Initiative 522. If passed, this initiative would require labeling of products that contain GMO ingredients.

If you’re not clear on what GMOs are, check out my earlier posts on GMOs and the concerns surrounding them.

Generally, supporters of Initiative 522 are concerned that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and/or the pesticides whose use is enabled by genetic engineering cause detrimental health effects including cancer.

Although these concerns are unconfirmed, supporters of the initiative argue that consumers have a right to know what they are buying and eating. For me, it’s about being able to make an informed decision. Even if I don’t know that GMOs are dangerous, I don’t know that they’re safe either. GMO testing is not mandatory, and most of the testing that has been done was done by the companies that produce GMOs.

Opponents of the initiative argue that GMO labeling – especially the prominent labeling required by 522 – would have a stigmatizing effect on their products. They argue that GMOs are safe, but that pointing out that products contain GMOs in such a prominent way would make it seem like there is something dangerous or concerning about them. This cautionary element is undoubtedly exactly what some supporters are hoping for.

However this has not been the case in the Netherlands, China, or France, where GMO labeling has not affected consumer behavior. Still, opponents argue that the type of labeling that would be required in Washington is much more prominent and therefore seems more like a warning.

The other argument against GMO labeling is economic. Opponents argue that labeling will make food more expensive, either through forcing producers to go to more effort so that they do not contain GMOs or by forcing GMO products off of shelves and therefore reducing both competition and selection. At the same time, food producers might enter into costly lawsuits resisting the legislation and its effects.

These concerns have prompted the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents producers including Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg, and Kraft, as well as chemical companies Monsanto and Dupont to contribute over $22 million to the anti-labeling campaign.

Supporters including those above and notably including Dr. Bronner's have raised about $8 million.

However, while the campaign might be unbalanced in terms of resources, polls indicate that Washingtonians favor labeling. This was strongly reflected in polls of Washington’s population a few months ago, but a huge influx of anti-labeling funds and advertising have reduced the margin from 45 percentage points to 4.

The fate of Washington’s Initiative 522 is uncertain. It might join Connecticut as the second state to require labeling (and become the first of four other states needed to require labeling in order for Connecticut's labeling to go into effect). Or it might be defeated.

Either way, it seems that sooner or later labeling will be required. Polls show that over 90 percent of Americans support labeling. Americans hardly ever agree that strongly, so when they do, something is bound to happen.

So whether it’s Washington today, Vermont next year, or one of the other 20 states considering labeling laws, GMOs will be labeled. Hopefully labeling will force producers and regulators to mandate better studies on the safety of these ingredients.

[jenny-bristini]

[agavebuzz]

Bull

[closeupfaraway]

Many of the No on 522 ads are asking why we wanted to be treated "differently" from other states. Fuck the other states, I want to be treated as equals with other Countries.